Summary of Study ST001834

This data is available at the NIH Common Fund's National Metabolomics Data Repository (NMDR) website, the Metabolomics Workbench, https://www.metabolomicsworkbench.org, where it has been assigned Project ID PR001158. The data can be accessed directly via it's Project DOI: 10.21228/M8199Q This work is supported by NIH grant, U2C- DK119886.

See: https://www.metabolomicsworkbench.org/about/howtocite.php

This study contains a large results data set and is not available in the mwTab file. It is only available for download via FTP as data file(s) here.

Perform statistical analysis  |  Show all samples  |  Show named metabolites  |  Download named metabolite data  
Download mwTab file (text)   |  Download mwTab file(JSON)   |  Download data files (Contains raw data)
Study IDST001834
Study TitleA metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable nutrition facts labels
Study SummaryA new generation of plant-based meat alternatives—formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat—have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. This has raised questions of whether plant-based meat alternatives represent proper nutritional replacements to animal meat. Given that food sources have considerable complexity and contain a wide variety of nutrients (e.g., phenols, anti-oxidants, peptides, amino acids, fatty acids, and other carboxylic acids), the majority of which do not appear on nutrition labels, it is important to explore expanded nutrient profiles when determining whether beef and plant-based meat alternatives are nutritionally interchangeable. Important nutritional differences may exist between beef and novel plant-based alternatives, given their materials origin; however, this has not been thoroughly assessed. Given the scientific and commercial interest in plant-based meat alternatives, the goal of our study was to use untargeted metabolomics to provide an in-depth comparison of the metabolite profiles of grass-fed ground beef and a popular plant-based meat alternative.
Institute
Duke University
Last Namevan Vliet
First NameStephan
Address300 N Duke Street
Emailstephan.vanvliet@duke.edu
Phone2177785001
Submit Date2021-06-03
Raw Data AvailableYes
Raw Data File Type(s)cdf
Analysis Type DetailGC-MS
Release Date2021-06-24
Release Version1
Stephan van Vliet Stephan van Vliet
https://dx.doi.org/10.21228/M8199Q
ftp://www.metabolomicsworkbench.org/Studies/ application/zip

Select appropriate tab below to view additional metadata details:


Project:

Project ID:PR001158
Project DOI:doi: 10.21228/M8199Q
Project Title:A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable nutrition facts labels
Project Summary:A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives—formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat—have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. This has raised questions of whether plant-based meat alternatives represent proper nutritional replacements to animal meat. Given that food sources have considerable complexity and contain a wide variety of nutrients (e.g., phenols, anti-oxidants, peptides, amino acids, fatty acids, and other carboxylic acids), the majority of which do not appear on nutrition labels, it is important to explore expanded nutrient profiles when determining whether beef and plant-based meat alternatives are nutritionally interchangeable. Important nutritional differences may exist between beef and novel plant-based alternatives, given their materials origin; however, this has not been thoroughly assessed. Given the scientific and commercial interest in plant-based meat alternatives, the goal of our study was to use untargeted metabolomics to provide an in-depth comparison of the metabolite profiles of grass-fed ground beef and a popular plant-based meat alternative.
Institute:Duke University
Last Name:van Vliet
First Name:Stephan
Address:300 North Duke Street, Durham, North Carolina, 27701, USA
Email:stephan.vanvliet@duke.edu
Phone:12177785001
Funding Source:No funding was received for this work.

Subject:

Subject ID:SU001911
Subject Type:Food item
Subject Species:-

Factors:

Subject type: Food item; Subject species: - (Factor headings shown in green)

mb_sample_id local_sample_id Treatment
SA170614GB-15Ground Beef
SA170615GB-13Ground Beef
SA170616GB-12Ground Beef
SA170617GB-16Ground Beef
SA170618GB-17Ground Beef
SA170619GB-1Ground Beef
SA170620GB-18Ground Beef
SA170621GB-11Ground Beef
SA170622GB-14Ground Beef
SA170623GB-5Ground Beef
SA170624GB-4Ground Beef
SA170625GB-10Ground Beef
SA170626GB-2Ground Beef
SA170627GB-6Ground Beef
SA170628GB-3Ground Beef
SA170629GB-7Ground Beef
SA170630GB-8Ground Beef
SA170631GB-9Ground Beef
SA170632PB-14Plant-based meat alternative
SA170633PB-12Plant-based meat alternative
SA170634PB-13Plant-based meat alternative
SA170635PB-15Plant-based meat alternative
SA170636PB-17Plant-based meat alternative
SA170637PB-11Plant-based meat alternative
SA170638PB-18Plant-based meat alternative
SA170639PB-16Plant-based meat alternative
SA170640PB-1Plant-based meat alternative
SA170641PB-4Plant-based meat alternative
SA170642PB-3Plant-based meat alternative
SA170643PB-2Plant-based meat alternative
SA170644PB-5Plant-based meat alternative
SA170645PB-6Plant-based meat alternative
SA170646PB-9Plant-based meat alternative
SA170647PB-8Plant-based meat alternative
SA170648PB-7Plant-based meat alternative
SA170649PB-10Plant-based meat alternative
Showing results 1 to 36 of 36

Collection:

Collection ID:CO001904
Collection Summary:Samples were homogenized, methoximated and trimethylsilylated, and untargeted metabolomic analysis was conducted via gas chromatography/electron-ionization mass spectrometry (GC/EI-MS).
Collection Protocol Filename:protocol_burger.docx
Sample Type:new

Treatment:

Treatment ID:TR001924
Treatment Summary:A novel plant-based meat alternative (n=18) and grass-fed ground beef (n=18) were matched for serving size (113 grams) and fat content (14 grams). Untargeted metabolomics was performed via gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) with an electron ionization (EI) by extracting ~50 mg of sample from individually cooked patties.

Sample Preparation:

Sampleprep ID:SP001917
Sampleprep Summary:One-gram microcore samples were obtained from the middle of each patty using a bioptome device, immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at -80 degrees °C until metabolomics analysis. Microcore samples the plant-based meat replacement and bovine skeletal muscle (i.e., beef) were powdered under liquid N2 and homogenized in 50% aqueous acetonitrile containing 0.3% formic acid (50 mg wet weight sample per ml homogenate) using a Qiagen Retsch Tissue Lyser II set to a frequency of 30 oscillations/sec for a total of 2 min with one 5 mm glass ball (GlenMills, Inc, #7200-005000TM) per tube. Proteins in sample homogenates were subsequently “crash" precipitated with 750 µl dry methanol and centrifuged at 13.500 x g rcf for 5 minutes (Vial CentrifugeTM, MicroSolv, catalog C2417) and spiked with D27-deuterated myristic acid (D27-C14:0) (Sigma 366889, 6.25 mg/liter) for retention-time locking (described below). Methanolic extracts were dried in a Savant SPD111V SpeedVac Concentrator (Thermo Scientific, Asheville, NC). 25 µl methoxyamine hydrochloride (18 mg/ml in dry pyridine: Fisher Scientific, catalog number T324-50) was then added to each sample and incubated at 50 °C for 30 minutes for methoximation of certain reactive carbonyl groups. Finally, metabolites were rendered volatile by replacement of easily exchangeable protons with trimethylsilyl (TMS) groups using N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl) trifluoroacetamide (MSTFA; 75 µl per sample Cerilliant M-132, Sigma, St. Louis, MO) at 50 ºC for 30 minutes. Biological comparators (beef vs. plant-meat based alternative) were run in direct succession (e.g., the order A-B-A-B) on a 7890B GC / 5977B single-quadrupole, Inert MS (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). Prior to each daily run (2 total), the starting inlet pressure was empirically adjusted such that the retention time of the TMS-D27-C14:0 standard is set at ~16.727 minutes. Radical cations generated with conventional electron ionization via a tungsten-rhenium filament set to an energy of 70 eV were scanned broadly from 600 to 50 m/z in the detector throughout the run

Combined analysis:

Analysis ID AN002976
Analysis type MS
Chromatography type GC
Chromatography system Agilent 7890B
Column Agilent DB5-MS (15m x 0.25mm, 0.25um)
MS Type EI
MS instrument type Single quadrupole
MS instrument name Agilent 5977
Ion Mode NEGATIVE
Units Log-transformed deconvoluted spectra

Chromatography:

Chromatography ID:CH002205
Instrument Name:Agilent 7890B
Column Name:Agilent DB5-MS (15m x 0.25mm, 0.25um)
Column Temperature:325
Internal Standard:TMS-D27-C14:0
Chromatography Type:GC

MS:

MS ID:MS002766
Analysis ID:AN002976
Instrument Name:Agilent 5977
Instrument Type:Single quadrupole
MS Type:EI
MS Comments:Raw data from Agilent's MassHunter software environment were imported into the freeware, Automatic Mass Spectral Deconvolution and Identification Software or AMDIS (version 2.73)—7-9; courtesy of NIST at http://chemdata.nist.gov/mass-spc/amdis/). Peaks were not normalized, with all samples run in a single batch sequence, for which we have found normalization of peak intensities to not be necessary. Deconvoluted spectra were annotated as metabolites using an orthogonal approach that incorporates both retention time (RT) from GC and the fragmentation pattern observed in EI-MS. Peak annotation was based primarily on our own RT-locked spectral library of metabolites (2059 spectra from 1174 unique compounds at the time of analysis; January 2020). Our library is built upon the Fiehn GC/MS Metabolomics RTL Library (a gift from Agilent, their part number G1676-90000; Kind et al. 2009 3. Additional spectra have been gleaned from running pure reagent standards in our lab, from the Golm Metabolome Library10 http://csbdb.mpimp-golm.mpg.de/csbdb/gmd/gmd.html), and from the Wiley 10th-NIST 2014 commercial library (Agilent G1730-64000). Peak alignment and chemometrics of log-base-two-transformed areas of deconvoluted peaks were performed with our own custom macros, written in our lab in Visual Basic (version 6.0) for use in the Excel (Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2019) software environment (both from Microsoft, Redmond, WA)
Ion Mode:NEGATIVE
  logo